On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 19:28 +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Will someone implement this feature ?
>
> Today, I start to implement, and see that on rpm-based distro,
> likes: RedHat, Yellowdog, FTOSX, etc
> haves the file, "/etc/'distro-name'-
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi,
Will someone implement this feature ?
Today, I start to implement, and see that on rpm-based distro,
likes: RedHat, Yellowdog, FTOSX, etc
haves the file, "/etc/'distro-name'-release that may be got from rpm
commands.
I also note that generally, all these dist
Hello,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
I for one don't see any reason to add a 'uname -d' if lsb-release is
already specified. I imagine that it's easier for utilities to
check for the existence of the lsb-release executable than it is to
check for uname's support of a -d flag.
The only concern is th
"Wichmann, Mats D" wrote:
>
> >I think the point was that there already *is* a command named lsb-
> >release (try it- it's there in Fedora 2 at least).
>
> Yup, on RH and related (Fedora) releases it's been around since
> a post-release patch to 7.3.
>
> >I for one don't see any reason to add a
>I think the point was that there already *is* a command named lsb-
>release (try it- it's there in Fedora 2 at least).
Yup, on RH and related (Fedora) releases it's been around since
a post-release patch to 7.3.
>I for one don't see any reason to add a 'uname -d' if lsb-release is
>already spe
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:24 +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a.
>
> uname is sufficient.
>
> Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve
> the matter.
>
> Thanks,
> Giovanni
Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The person preparing uname for inclusion into a distribution package
> will have to manually provide values for these four fields in a
> configuration file. To ensure that this is not forgotten, the uname
> distribution should refuse to compile out of the
"Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a.
>
> uname is sufficient.
>
> Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve
> the matter.
I do not think anyone is claiming that lsb is prohibite
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX. LSB is the venue for the issue.
>
> Regards, Bruce
Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
that gives all this stuff.
> lsb_release -a
> LSB Version:1.3
> Distributor ID: RedHa
Nick Stoughton wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX. LSB is the venue for the issue.
Regards, Bruce
Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
that gives all this stuff.
lsb_release -a
LSB Version:1.3
Dist
Hello,
If no one else is trying to implement these features, I'd like to
give it a shot.
regards,
GVK
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
>
> At present, the 'uname -o' command simply gives GNU/Linux for any of the
> many Linux distributions. Sin
"Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" wrote:
>
> Markus Kuhn wrote:
>
> >Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> I like this proposal, but I prefer to maintain "-o" (OS) instead of
> "-d" (Distro).
>
> However, when approved must be POSIX complaint.
Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX.
Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ uname -d
> SuSE Linux Professional 9.1 (DVD 32-bit)
> $ uname -dv
> SuSE
> $ uname -dp
> Linux Professional
> $ uname -dr
> 9.1
> $ uname -da
> DVD 32-bit
Should the meaning of -v/-p/-r/-a depend on the presence of -d, or
should these get new option names
Markus Kuhn wrote:
Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
Hi,
I like this proposal, but I prefer to maintain "-o" (OS) instead of
"-d" (Distro).
However, when approved must be POSIX complaint.
Thanks,
Giovanni
At present, the 'uname -o' command simply gives GNU/Linux for any of the
many Linux
Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
At present, the 'uname -o' command simply gives GNU/Linux for any of the
many Linux distributions. Since these distributions differ often very
significantly, it would be useful if uname could also identify the OS
distribution and version that it came with. I belie
15 matches
Mail list logo
